Introduction to Letter to Gayle Filter, Prosecutor for
California District Attorney’s Association
Judicial abuses are not new. When Americans ratified the process to self regulate by means of reasonable laws applied with integrity and fairness to all, our American ancestors recognized the pitfalls. My familiarity with the judicial branch of our three branches of government span most of my adult life. I uncovered the following which I wrote on September 12, 1974.
An example of small town American
justice surfaced today. My question
How many times has this happened before?
In American, why never! A million or more.
Read Solzhinitsyn, he tells quite a tale.
Innocence is purged in death and in jail.
Communism, Russia, that’s so far away.
But it happened to me, and it happened today.
I lost my trial. Thank God money the loss.
But truth, justice, and right…they were the costs.
Americans are paying for their apathy.
The sadness in that is so few of them see.
Look around you. Spot space takers, non-productive ones.
The burden to feed them will fall on your sons.
God knows the answer. Surly not I.
Should I try to fight it? Or shall I just cry.
Were these thoughts insightful twenty-eight years ago? My respect for the judiciary as a primary safeguard for our securities and freedoms is unmatched by anyone in or out of the legal business. For us to deny and tolerate the many abuses and breaches of responsibility and obligation exhibited by too many lawyers and judges will eventually enslave our citizens. Civil misconduct by professionals is one thing, but criminal accusations and prosecution require a higher practice of “due diligence.” What do you think?
October 15, 2002
731 K Street, Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Filter,
You have failed to perform legal services with competence as required under the law of professional behavior of a lawyer in the State of California. Specifically you failed to apply the diligence reasonably necessary for the performance of your service. Rule 3-110 Failing to Act Competently. You have failed and/or are pursuing felony criminal charges against Michael Miller with reckless disregard for the facts and evidence of the tragic industrial accident at the mine. The above is also true for Jonathan Farrell.
The terms of your contract with the Department of Industrial Relations (agreement number 40920043) contains specific language regarding the purpose, execution and responsibilities of the scope of work to be performed. Upon thorough investigation of events and circumstances pertinent to the contract and the specifics of your felony charges against Michael Miller and Jonathan Farrell, it is readily apparent the charges filed by CDAA breach the terms, conditions and intent of the contract.
Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. continues to suffer damages as CDAA attempts to meet the scope of Exhibit A, 1 and 2 of the contract. Our Directors demand an immediate end to your actions to meet your goals of enforcement training and “hands-on” training at our expense. There is no justification for Original Sixteen to One Mine and it’s employees becoming a guinea pig in your experimental laboratory of economic/social behavior.
You have a duty under the agreement to review all investigatory reports. I assume you have done this. You have failed in your duty required by statutes. Now that Mr. Hedum is gone, it is your personal responsibility to determine whether criminal filings should be made. There is no evidence to support this complaint, but most significantly there is ample evidence that the charges are contrived. Is all this your idea or someone in greater responsibility? Please answer this question. You have more than a duty/responsibility as an officer of the court guiding your conduct. You, your association and others are practicing deceit or collusion. Your oath prohibits you from misleading the judge. You misled the judge in the courtroom on August 22, 2002. Your behavior clearly violates the Rules of Admission, Rule X.
Provide me a complete list identifying all investigatory reports you have gatherd in support of the complaint against Miller and Farrell. You may exclude identifying Jean Patterson’s October 1, 2001, report. How do you justify charging felonious behavior against Michael Miller when the Patterson report only suggests “Sixteen to One Mine, Incorporated” and “Jonathan Todd Farrell” as suspects?
On behalf of the Board of Directors, empowered by constitutional and lawful fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders, I request you immediately withdraw your recommended actions for prosecution of the company’s key employees, Miller and Farrell.
Michael M. Miller